[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 3028bis: post-meeting changes
Philip Guenther wrote:
3. IANA template
I think we should simply drop the "Capability name" and "Capability
arguments" fields, leaving:
The proposal from the meeting was:
Have a require capability name.
Have a short description of what an extension does.
Have separate lists for all new tests/actions/etc., so that we can avoid
incompatible action/test/etc. names between multiple extensions.
I still think have a single true place for listing all actions/tests is
a good thing.
Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number:
Person and email address to contact for further information:
As I see it, there are two major concerns for the registry:
1) capabilities should be unique, so that require "foo" has the
same meaning everywhere it works
2) given a standardized capability, you need to be able to find
the current RFC describing it
Concerns about different capabilities enabling the same action or
test are better addressed, IMHO, by reexamining the naming and
review policy for the registry.